61st Congress, ) 

SENATE. 

j Document 

2d Sessio7i. ) 


( No. 524. 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


Mr. Brown presented the following: 

SPEECH OF HON. JONATHAN BOURNE, JR., OF OREGON, DELIV¬ 
ERED IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE MAY 5, 1910, ON “POP¬ 
ULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT, AND ITS EFFECT 
ON LEGISLATION.” 


May 6, 1910.—Ordered to be printed. 


Popular Versus Delegated Government. 

Mr. President, the justice of all laws rests primarily on the integ¬ 
rity, ability, and disinterestedness of the individuals enacting them, 
those construing them, and those administering them. On this 
assumption, I believe the remarks I intend to make have a bearing 
on all legislation, and hence do not hesitate to present them now 
while we have the interstate-commerce bill under consideration. 

I think all will concede that the times seem awry. Unrest exists 
throughout the civilized world. People are speculating as to the 
causes. Daily uncertainty grows stronger as to future events. 

In my opinion, the basic cause is that people have lost confidence 
in many of their public servants and bitterly resent attempted dic¬ 
tatorship by “would-be” political bosses and representatives of 
( special interests who desire to direct public servants and legislation 
for their own selfish interests rather than assist in the enactment of 
laws guaranteeing justice to all and special privileges to none. 

Successful and permanent government must rest primarily on 
recognition of the rights of men and the absolute sovereignty of the 
people. Upon these principles is built the superstructure of our 
Republic. Their maintenance and perpetuation measure the life of 
\ the Republic. These policies, therefore, stand for the rights and 
liberties of the people and for the power and majesty of the Govern¬ 
ment as against the enemies of both. 

The people have been shocked by the number of business and 
political exposures which have been brought out in the last ten years. 

At the time of Mr. Roosevelt’s inauguration the tendency was to 
measure national prosperity by property rather than by personal 
liberty. The commercial force of society was rapidly throttling the 
police power of the Government. Political machines and bosses dic¬ 
tated the legislative and administrative destinies of many commu¬ 
nities and States. Mr. Roosevelt, with his experience in practical 


10 - 1 , 5^101 







2 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


politics, familiarity with governmental operations, inherent honesty, 
dynamic energy, and limitless courage, demonstrated that he meas¬ 
ured up to the needs of the time, and assumed leadership for rein¬ 
statement of the police power of the Government in supremacy over 
the commercial force of society. To him belongs credit for reestab¬ 
lishment of these two great forces in their proper relative positions. 
He awakened the public conscience, and the result is a struggle 
throughout the nation between the advocates of what I would term 
“popular government” and the advocates of delegated government. 

DIRECT SELECTION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS. 

In many instances the people have lost confidence in their public 
servants, the same as many stockholders have lost confidence in cor¬ 
poration management. The remedy in government is the direct 
selection by the people of their public servants, with the resultant 
accountability of the public servant to the people, and not to a polit¬ 
ical machine or boss. I purposely use the word “selection” rather 
than “nomination,” for to my mind it more clearly expresses the 
idea of the responsibility of good citizenship. Selection implies the 
careful investigation of all and the resultant choice of one. The remedy 
in corporation management is rigid responsibility to government; 
equal obedience to laws and equal accountability to stockholders, 
giving the Government and the stockholders the fullest publicity of 
its operations, including absolute honesty and simplicity of its ac¬ 
counts, thus protecting the rights of the people and insuring to all the 
stockholders proportional enjoyment in the fruits of successful man¬ 
agement. 

Mr. President, I will endeavor to deal in my remarks with what I 
believe to be the great issue not only in this country but throughout 
the civilized world, namely, popular against delegated government. 

Much has been said in favor of representative government. I 
believe in a truly representative government, but where the selection 
of public servants is left to a political machine or boss, as is frequently 
the case under our convention system, the tendency is toward mis- 
representative, and not a truly representative, form of government, 
notwithstanding the election is supposedly by the people. 

PEOPLE CAPABLE OF SELF-GOVERNMENT. 

There are doubtless some people who honestly believe that the 
people as a whole have not reached the stage of development qualify¬ 
ing them individually to participate in government. Others whom 
1 credit with the intelligence which I have seen manifested by them 
in other directions assert the inability of the people to govern them¬ 
selves as an excuse rather than a conviction; but I, Mr. President, 
from thirty years’ experience in practical politics, am absolutely con¬ 
vinced not only that the people are fully capable of governing them¬ 
selves, but that they are decidedly the best judges as to those individ¬ 
uals to whom they shall delegate the truly representative power. 

Individual selfishness, cupidity, and ambition are minimized in the 
party or general electorate selections of public servants; good gen¬ 
eral service is demanded by the electorate, special service by the 
individual. 


eth. 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


3 


a 


Hence my advocacy of popular government. By popular govern¬ 
ment I mean direct legislation as far as practicable, popular selection 
of candidates, and such regulation of political campaigns as will 
secure fair and honest elections. Popular selection under the present 
stage of evolution of our Government can be obtained only by direct 
primary laws and complete elimination of convention and caucus 
nomination of public officers. 

Time was when a few self-constituted leaders in Oregon politics 
arrogated to themselves the prerogatives of government and made 
their assumption effective through illicit combinations and the use of 
money in any and every quarter where necessary to their purposes 
of control—that is, they commercialized conventions, legislatures, 
and the administrative branches of the city, county, and state govern¬ 
ment. It was not a condition peculiar to Oregon. It obtained, 
and I believe still obtains in a more or less flagrant degree, in every 
State in the Union; and it had its boldest, most unscrupulous execu¬ 
tive genius in Boss Tweed, who, recognizing the opportunity of the 
crook in government by party through convention nominations, 
declared he did not care who elected the candidates so long as he 
had the power to nominate the ticket. 

Revolting against these conditions, the State which 1 have the 
honor, in part, to represent, has evolved the best known system 
of popular government, and, because of this conviction, I take 
this opportunity of presenting not only to the Senate but to the 
country a brief analysis of the Oregon laws bearing upon this ques¬ 
tion, with my own deductions as to the improvement they show and 
the merits they possess. 

AUSTRALIAN BALLOT LAW. 

Oregon in 1891 adopted the Australian ballot, which insures 
secrecy, prevents intimidation, and reduces the opportunity for 
bribery. This, of course, is a prerequisite to any form of popu¬ 
lar government. 

REGISTRATION LAW. 

Supplementing the Australian ballot law, Oregon enacted in 
1899 a registration law applying to general elections and enlarged 
its scope in 1904 in the law creating a direct primary. This law 
requires registration prior to voting in either the general or the 
primary election, and provides that before voting in a party primary 
the voter must, under oath, register his party affiliation. Registra¬ 
tion begins five months prior to the general election. Registration 
books are closed ten days prior to the primary election and opened 
again four days after the primary, and then kept open until about 
twenty days before the general election. A voter may register either 
by appearing at the office of the county clerk or by signing registration 
blanks before a notary public or justice of the peace. 

Upon the registration books are entered the full name of the voter, 
his registration number, date of registration, his occupation, age, 
nativity, date and place of naturalization, if any, and his place of 
residence. In order to guard against fraud, it is required that the 
voter shall give his street and number, and if he is not the head of the 
house he occupies, he must show that fact and give the number of the 




• w&r 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT 


room he occupies and upon what floor of the building it is located. 
He must also sign the register, if lie can write. If he is unable to 
write his name, the reason must be given. If his inability is due to a 
physical defect, the nature of the infirmity must be noted. If it is 
due to illiteracy, a physical description of the man must, be noted in 
the register. _ . 

All these facts are entered in precinct registers which are placed in 
the hands of election judges and clerks on election day, so that 
illegal voting may be prevented. 

Any registered voter may be challenged and every nonregistered 
voter is considered challenged. An unregistered person qualified 
as an elector may be permitted to vote upon signing an affidavit 
setting forth all the facts required in registration and also securing the 
affidavits of six owners of real property to the effect that they person¬ 
ally know him and his residence and believe all his statements to be 
true. 

Thus the greatest boon of American citizenship, namely, the right 
to participate in government, is protected, and dead men, repeaters, 
and nonresidents can no longer be voted in Oregon. 

INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 

Oregon’s next step in popular government was the adoption of the 
initiative and referendum amendment to the constitution, which 
amendment was adopted in June, 1902, by a vote of 62,024 to 5,668. 
It provides that legislative authority shall be vested in a legislative 
assembly, but that the people reserve to themselves the power to 
propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or 
reject the same at the polls independent of the legislative assembly, 
and also reserve power to approve or reject at the polls any act of 
the legislature. An initiative petition must be signed by 8 per cent 
of the legal voters, as shown by the vote for supreme judge at the last 

f receding general election, and filed with the secretary of state not 
ess than four months before the election. 

A referendum petition need be signed by only 5 per cent of the 
voters and filed with the secretary of state within ninety days after 
final adjournment of the legislature which passed the bill on which the 
referendum is demanded. The legislature may itself refer to the 
people any act passed by it. The veto power of the governor does 
not extend to any measure referred to the people. 

STATE PUBLISHES PUBLICITY PAMPHLETS. 

In addition to the publicity incident to the circulation of the peti¬ 
tions, the law provides that the secretary of state shall, at the expense 
of the State, mail to every registered voter in the State a printed pam- 

E hlet containing a true copy of the title and text of each measure to 
e submitted to the people, and the proponents and opponents of the 
law have the right to insert in said pamphlet, at the actual cost to 
themselves of paper and printing only, such arguments as they see 
fit to make. These pamphlets must be mailed not later than fifty- 
five days before a general election and twenty days before a special 
election. 

The initiative develops the electorate, placing directly upon them 
the responsibility for legislation enacted under its provision; the 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


5 


referendum elevates the legislature because of the possibility of its 
use in case of undesirable legislation. Brains, ideas, and argument, 
rather than money, intimidation, and log-rolling govern the standards 
of legislation. 

Corporation attorneys must exercise their mental activities along 
constructive rather than destructive and avoidance lines. Possibility 
of scandal is minimized, recipients of franchises freed from the impu¬ 
tation of secret purchase, and general community confidence is 
secured. 

Oregon’s experience satisfactory. 

Since that amendment was adopted the people of Oregon have 
voted upon 23 measures submitted to them under the initiative, 
5 submitted under the referendum, and 4 referred to the people by 
the legislature. Nineteen measures were submitted at one election. 
That the people acted intelligently is evident from the fact that in 
no instance has there been general dissatisfaction with the result of 
the vote. The measures submitted presented almost every phase 
of legislation, and some of them were bills of considerable length. 

Results attained under direct legislation in Oregon compare so 
favorably with the work of a legislative assembly that an effort to 
repeal the initiative and referendum would be overwhelmingly 
defeated. No effort has ever been attempted. 

It has been asserted that the people will not study a large number 
of measures, but will vote in the affirmative, regardless of the merits 
of measures submitted. Experience in Oregon has disproved this, 
for the results show that the people have exercised discriminating 
judgment. They, have enacted laws and have adopted constitutional 
amendments in which they believed and have defeated those of which 
they did not approve. 

CONCRETE ILLUSTRATIONS. 

I will give several concrete illustrations: 

Under the initiative in 1904 a local-option liquor law was adopted 
by a vote of 43,316 to 40,194. Two years later the opponents of the 
local-option law proposed an amendment in their interest, and this 
was defeated by a vote of 35,297 to 45,144. It will be noticed that 
in the first instance the issue was affirmatively presented and in the 
second instance negatively, with a view to befogging the people, but 
the popular expression was the same in both. 

For many years city charters in Oregon had been made the trading 
stock of political factions in the legislature. The dominant faction 
amended city charters as a reward to political allies. Traffic in local 
legislation even went so far that it sometimes served as a consideration 
in election of United States Senators. But, in 1906, having tired of 
this disregard of the interest of good municipal government, the peo¬ 
ple, acting under the initiative, adopted a constitutional amendment 
which took away from the legislature the power to enact or amend a 
city charter and vested that power in the people of the municipalities, 
thus establishing home rule. The amendment was adopted bv a vote 
of 52,567 to 19,852. 

Mr. Dixon. Mr. President, if it will not interrupt the Senator- 

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Kean in the chair). Does the Senator 
from Oregon yield to the Senator from Montana ? 






6 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


Mr. Bourne. I would prefer that the Senator wait until I get 
through before asking his question. 

Mr. Dixon. I merely want to ask at this point how many voters 
must petition in order to initiate legislation ? 

Mr. Bourne. Eight per cent of the voters, as I have already stated 
in my remarks. 

Mr. La Follette. Mr. President - 

The Presiding Officer. Does the Senator from Oregon yield to 
the Senator from Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Bourne. I do. 

Mr. La Follette. I desire to ask the Senator what percentage 
of the total vote of the State, as a rule, is registered on the important 
measures that are submitted. 

Mr. Bourne. Mr. President, I would say, in answer to the Senator’s 
question- 

Mr. La Follette. Approximately. 

Mr. Bourne. Approximately from 75 to 80 per cent. 

In Oregon, as in many other States, there has long been a feeling 
that certain classes of corporations which own very little tangible 
property do not bear their proper share of the burden of taxation. Leg¬ 
islatures failed to provide a remedy. For the purpose of securing a 
more equitable distribution of the burden of taxation the state grange, 
proceeding under the initiative, proposed a law levying a gross-earn¬ 
ings tax of 3 per cent on sleeping-car, refrigerator-car, and oil-car 
companies, which measure was adopted by a vote of 69,635 to 6,441. 
The grange also proposed a similar law levying a gross-earnings tax 
of 3 per cent on express and 2 per cent on telephone and telegraph 
companies, and it was adopted by a vote of 70,872. to 6,360. Each 
of these gross-earnings tax laws applied only to intrastate business. 

That the people can and will study measures and vote with dis¬ 
crimination is shown by the record upon two appropriation bills 
passed by the legislature of 1907. One of these bills proposed to 
increase the annual fixed appropriation for the state university from 
$47,500 to $125,000. The other bill appropriated $100,000 for con¬ 
struction of armories for the national guard. The referendum was 
demanded upon both measures, and both were submitted to a vote 
of the people at the general election in 1908. There was full and 
fair discussion through the press, at public meetings, and at sessions 
of the grange. The bill increasing the appropriation for the univer¬ 
sity was approved by the people by a vote of 44,115 to 40,535. The 
armory appropriation bill was defeated by a vote of 33,507 to 54,848. 

I shall cite but one more of many instances which show the manner 
in which the initiative has been effective in Oregon. For a great 
many years there had been efforts to secure adequate laws for the 
protection of salmon in the Columbia River, but because of con¬ 
flicting interests between the upper river and the lower river, legis¬ 
latures could not be induced to enact laws that would protect the 
fish. As a consequence the salmon fisheries were being destroyed. 

At the election in 1908 the upper-river fishermen proposed under 
the initiative a bill practically prohibiting fishing on the lower river 
and the lower-river fishermen proposed a bill forbidding fishing on 
the upper river. There was wide discussion of both bills, and the 
suggestion was freely made that both bills should be adopted. The 



POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


7 


people, disgusted with the failures of the legislatures to enact suitable 
laws for the protection of fish, followed this suggestion, and both 
bills were enacted. With fishing practically prohibited on both 
sections of the river, the legislature in 1909 responded to the popular 
demand by enacting, in conjunction with the legislature of the State 
of Washington, a fishery law which provided adequate protection. I 
believe I am safe in saying that this would not have been done but 
for the popular adoption of the two fishery bills. 

I do not care to take the time of the Senate to discuss each of the 
measures that have been acted upon by the people of the State, but 
in order that those who desire may have the opportunity to observe 
the wide range the measures have taken and the attitude assumed 
toward them by the people of Oregon, I ask consent to have published 
in the Record in this connection a very brief summary of the titles 
of the measures, together with the vote upon each. 

The Presiding Officer. In the absence of objection, permission 
is granted. 

(The matter referred to is as follows:) 


Popular vote upon measures submitted to the people of Oregon under either the initiative 

or referendum. 


1904. 


Yes. 


No. 


Direct primary law with direct selection of United States Senator ® 
Local-option liquor law a. 


56,205 16,354 

43,316 40,198 


1906. 


Omnibus appropriation bill, state institutions b . 

Equal suffrage constitutional amendment «•. 

Local-option bill proposed by liquor people a. 

Bill for purchase by State of Barlow toll road®. 

Amendment requiring referendum on any act calling constitutional convention a.... 

Amendment giving cities sole power to amend their charters a . 

Legislature authorized to fix pay of state printer a. 

Initiative and referendum to.apply to all local, special, and municipal laws a. 

Bill prohibiting free passes on railroads®. 

Gross-earnings tax on sleeping, refrigerator, and oil car companies®.. 

Gross-earnings tax on express, telephone, and telegraph companies®. 


43,918 
36,902 
35,297 
31,525 
47,661 
52.567 
63,749 
47,678 
57,281 
69,635 
70,872 


26,758 

47,075 

45,144 

44,527 

18,751 

19,852 

9,571 

16,735 

16,779 

6,441 

6,360 


1908. 


Amendment increasing pay of legislators from $120 to $400 per session c . 

Amendment permitting location of state institutions at places other than the capital e. i 
Amendment reorganizing system of courts and increasing supreme judges from three 

to five c . 

Amendment changing general election from June to November c. 

Bill giving sheriffs control of county prisoners b . 

Railroads required to give public officials free passes b . 

Bill appropriating $100,000 for armories b . 

Bill increasing fixed appropriation for State University from $47,500 to $125,000 

annually b . 

Equal-suffrage amendment®. 

Fishery bill proposed by fish-wheel operators «. 

Fishery bill proposed by gill-net operators ®... 

Amendment giving cities control of liquor selling, pool rooms, theaters, etc., subject to 

local-option law®. 

Modified form of single-tax amendment®... 

Recall power on public officials®... 

Bill instructing legislators to vote for people’s choice for United States Senators ®.... 

Amendment authorizing proportional-representation law a. 

Corrupt-practices act governing elections ®. 

Amendment requiring indictment to be by grand jury ®. 

Bill creating Hood River County®. 


19,691 

41,971 

30,243 
65,728 
60,443 
28,856 
33,507 

44,115 
36,858 
46,582 
56,130 

39,442 
32,066 
58,381 
69,668 
48,868 
54,042 
52,214 
43,948 


68,892 
40,868 

50,591 
18,590 
30,033 
59,406 
54,848 

40,535 
58,670 
40,720 
30,280 

52,346 
60,871 
31,002 
21,162 
34,128 
31,301 
28,487 
26,778 


a Submitted under the initiative. 

b Submitted under the referendum upon legislative act. 
c Submitted to the people by the legislature. 













































8 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


DIRECT LEGISLATION NOT EXPENSIVE. 

Mr. Bourne. Mr. President, anticipating the objection that 
direct legislation is expensive to the State, I will say that the sub¬ 
mission of a total of 32 measures at three different elections in Oregon 
has cost the State $25,000, or an average of about $781 for each meas¬ 
ure. At the election in 1908 there were 19 measures submitted, at 
a cost to the State of $12,362, or an average of about $651 each. 
Five of these 19 measures were submitted without argument. Upon 
the other 14 measures there were 19 arguments submitted, for which 
the authors paid the cost, amounting to $3,157. 

I have no hesitancy in saying that the people of Oregon feel satisfied 
that they have received full value for the $25,000 they have spent 
for the submission of measures under the initiative and referendum. 
The only persons who raise the question of cost are those who would 
be opposed to direct legislation if it were free of cost. I think I could 
cite numerous instances of laws passed by the legislature which cost 
the people much more than $25,000 without any tangible return, 
and perhaps could cite a few measures which had been defeated by 
legislatures with resultant loss to the people of many times $25,000. 
The cost of legislation can not always be measured in dollars. 

PEOPLE INTELLIGENT AND FAIR. 

The people are not only intelligent, but fair and honest. When the 
initiative and referendum was under consideration it was freely pre¬ 
dicted by enemies of popular government that the power would be 
abused and that capitalists would not invest their money in a State 
where property would be subject to attacks of popular passion and 
temporary whims. Experience has exploded this argument. There 
has been no hasty or ill-advised legislation. The people act calmly and 
deliberately and with that spirit of fairness which always character¬ 
izes a body of men who earn their living and acquire their property 
by legitimate means. Corporations have not been held up and black¬ 
mailed by the people, as they often have been by legislators. “ Pinch 
bills” are unknown. The people of Oregon were never before more 
prosperous and contented than they are to-day, and never before did 
the State offer such an inviting field for investment of capital. Not 
only are two transcontinental railroads building across the State, but 
several interurban electric lines are under construction, and rights 
of way for others are in demand. 

I have mentioned all of these facts for the purpose of showing that 
the people of my State, and, I believe, the people of every other State, 
can be trusted to act intelligently and honestly upon any question of 
legislation submitted for their approval or disapproval. 

The initiative and referendum is but one of the features of popular 
government in Oregon. It has been the means by which other 
reforms and progressive laws and constitutional amendments have 
been secured, for it has been found that the people can not always 
get the laws they desire through the legislature, but can get them 
through resort to the initiative. 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


9 


DIRECT PRIMARY LAW. 


The next step after the adoption of the initiative and referendum 
was the adoption, in 1904, by a vote of 56,205 to 16,354, of a direct 
primary law, which is designed to supersede the old and unsatisfac¬ 
tory convention system. The Oregon direct primary law provides 
for a primary election to be held forty-five days prior to the general 
election at the usual polling places and with the usual three election 
judges and three clerks in charge, appointed by the county courts. 
Not more than two judges or clerks can be members of the same 
political party. Two sets of ballots are provided, one for the Dem¬ 
ocratic party and one for the Republican party. Any party polling 
25 per cent of the vote at the previous election is brought under the 
provisions of the direct primary law, but thus far only the Demo¬ 
cratic and Republican parties are affected by it. 

Any legal voter may become a candidate in the primaries for 
nomination for any office by filing a petition signed by a certain per 
cent of the voters of his party. If the nomination is for a municipal 
or county office, the petition must include registered electors residing 
in at least one-fifth of the voting precincts of the county, munici¬ 
pality, or district. If it be a state or district office and the district 
comprises more than one county the petition must include electors 
residing in each of at least one-eighth of the precincts in at least two 
counties in the district. If it be an office to be voted for in the State at 
large the petition must include electors residing in each of at least one- 
tenth of the precincts in each of at least seven counties of the State. 
If it be an office to be voted for in a congressional district the petition 
must include electors residing in at least one-tenth of the precincts 
in each of at least one-fourth of the counties in the district. The 
number of signers required is at least 2 per cent of the party vote in 
the electoral district, but not more than 1,000 signers are required 
for a state or congressional office nor more than 500 in any other case. 
Petitions must be filed for a state or district office at least twenty 
days before the primary election, and for county or municipal offices 
fifteen days before the election. Names of the candidates are 
arranged on the ballots in alphabetical order. The ballot for the 
Republican party is printed on white paper; that for the Democratic 
party on blue paper; and that for any other party on yellow paper. 
The Australian ballot form is used in the primaries. No elector is 
qualified to vote at a party primary election unless he has registered 
and designated, under oath, his party affiliation, except that he may 
register at the polls on election day by filing an affidavit, verified by 
six freeholders of his precinct certifying to his legal qualifications, in 
which affidavit he must also designate his party affiliation. 


PARTY INTEGRITY PROTECTED. 

No voter is required to designate his party affiliation in order to 
vote at the general election, but registration of party affiliation 
is a prerequisite to participation in a party primary. This require¬ 
ment prevents the participation of members of one party in the pri¬ 
maries of another party. The right of each party to choose its own 
candidates is thus protected, and an evil all too common where 
restrictive party primary laws are not in force is avoided. 






10 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


Our direct primary law further provides that the candidate in his 
petition shall, among other things, agree to “accept the nomination 
and will not withdraw;” and, if elected, “will qualify as an officer,” 
implying, of course, that he will also serve. Each candidate is entitled 
to have placed in his petition a statement in not to exceed 100 words, 
and on the ballot, after his name, a legend in not to exceed 12 words, 
setting forth any measures or principles he especially advocates. 

/ 

STATEMENT NO. 1. 

In the case of a legislator’s nomination, the candidate may, in addi¬ 
tion to his statement, not exceeding 100 words specifying measures 
and principles he advocates, also subscribe to one of two statements, 
but if he does not so subscribe he shall not on that account be debarred 
from the ballot. It will be seen, therefore, that three courses are 
open to him. He may subscribe to “Statement No. 1 ” as follows: 

I further state to the people of Oregon, as well as to the people of my legislative 
district, that during my term of office I shall always vote for that candidate for United 
States Senator in Congress who has received the highest number of the people’s votes 
for that position at the general election next preceding the election of a Senator in 
Congress without regard to my individual preference. 

Or he may subscribe to “Statement No. 2,” as follows: 

During my term of office I shall consider the vote of the people for United States 
Senator in Congress as nothing more than a recommendation, which I shall be at liberty 
to wholly disregard if the reason for doing so seems to me to be sufficient. 

Or he may be perfectly silent on the election of United States 
Senator. It is entirely optional with the candidate. 

POPULAR VOTE FOR UNITED STATES SENATOR. 

The law further provides that United States Senators may be nomi¬ 
nated by their respective parties in the party primaries, and the 
candidate receiving the greatest number of votes thereby becomes 
the party nominee. Then in the general election the party nominees 
are voted for by the people, and the individual receiving the greatest 
number of votes in the general election thereby becomes the people’s 
choice for United States Senator. 

Notwithstanding that our primary-election law embodying these 
statements, particularly statement No. 1, was passed by a popular 
vote of approximately 56,000 for to 16,000 against, the opponents 
of the law charged that the people did not know what they were 
doing when they voted for it. Therefore, the advocates of the 
election of Senators by the people and of the enforcement of state¬ 
ment No. 1 submitted to the people under the initiative in 1908 the 
following bill: 

Be it enacted by the people of the State of Oregon: 

Section 1. That we, the people of the State of Oregon, hereby instruct our repre¬ 
sentatives and senators in our legislative assembly, as such officers, to vote for and 
elect the candidates for United States Senators from this State who receive the highest 
number of votes at our general elections. 

Although there was no organized campaign made for the adoption 
of this bill other than the argument accompanying its submission, 
while the opponents of the primary law assailed it vehemently, the 
basic principle of statement No. 1 and the election of United States 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


11 


Senators by the people was again indorsed by the passage of the bill 
by a popular vote of 69,565 for it to 21,182 against it, or by nearly 

to 1. 

HOW A DEMOCRAT WAS ELECTED SENATOR. 

Mr. President, in this connection I deem it proper to divert for a 
time from an explanation of our primary law and give a concrete 
illustration of its operation. Both my colleague, Senator Chamber- 
lain, and myself were selected by the people and elected by the legis¬ 
lature under the provision of this law. Opponents of popular govern¬ 
ment, and especially of the election of United States Senators by a 
direct vote of the people, have bitterly assailed statement No. 1 of 
our law because a legislature, overwhelmingly Republican, elected 
my colleague, who was a candidate selected by the Democratic party 
and nominated by the whole electorate of the State as the people’s 
choice of our State for United States Senator. Upon reflection I 
think every intelligent man who is honest with himself must concede 
that this fact, instead of being the basis of a criticism, is the highest 
kind of evidence as to the efficacy of the law, and every advocate of 
the election of United States Senators by a popular vote must realize 
that Oregon has evolved a plan, through its statement No. 1 provision 
of its primary law, wherein, in effect, the people enjoy the privilege 
of selecting their United States Senators, and, through the crystalli¬ 
zation of public opinion, the legislative ratification of their action. 

The Oregon legislature consists of 90 members, 30 in the senate and 
60 in the house, 46 making the necessary majority on full attendance 
for the election of United States Senator. Fifty-one members out of 
90 of the legislature which elected my colleague, Senator Chamberlain, 
were subscribers to Statement No. 1, making on joint ballot a majority 
of 6 out of a total of 90 members. All of these 51 members sub¬ 
scribed to Statement No. 1 pledge voluntarily, and it was so sub¬ 
scribed to by them from a personal belief in the desirability of the 
popular election of United States Senators and for the purpose of 
securing for themselves from the electorate preferment in the election 
to the office sought; the consideration in exchange for such prefer¬ 
ment was to be by them, as the legally constituted representatives 
of the electorate in their behalf, the perfunctory confirmation of the 
people’s selection of United States Senator as that choice might be 
ascertained under the provisions of the same law by which the legis¬ 
lators themselves secured nomination to office. 

To further illuminate the situation, I will state that in the primaries 
held in April, 1908, H. M. Cake received the Republican nomination 
for United States Senator, and my colleague, Senator Chamberlain, 
then governor of the State, received the Democratic nomination for 
United States Senator. At the general election in June Senator 
Chamberlain defeated Mr. Cake, notwithstanding the State was 
overwhelmingly Republican, thereby developing from the Demo¬ 
cratic candidate into the people’s choice for United States Senator. 
The normal Republican majority in Oregon, I think, is from 15,000 to 
20 , 000 . 

With full recognition of Governor Chamberlain’s ability and fitness 
for the office, the fact that for nearly six years he made the best 
governor Oregon ever had, and considering that undoubtedly he is 
the most popular man in our State, I deem it but just to the law and 






12 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


a proper answer to the criticism of enemies of the law that it destroys 
party lines and integrity, to state that, in my opinion, Senator Cham¬ 
berlain received the votes of several thousand Republican enemies of 
the law, who believed that in selecting Governor Chamberlain, a 
Democrat, they would prevent a Republican legislature from ratify¬ 
ing the people’s selection, obeying the people’s instructions, and 
electing as United States Senator the individual, regardless of party, 
that the people might select for that office. Thus they hoped to 
make the primary law and Statement No. 1 odious, and sought to 
create what they thought would be an impossible condition by forcing 
upon a Republican legislature for confirmation the popularly desig¬ 
nated Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. They 
failed to realize that greater than party, and infinitely greater than 
any individual, the people’s choice becomes a representative of the 
principle and of the law; that the intelligence and integrity of the 
whole electorate of the State, as well as the integrity and loyalty of 
the jnembers of the legislature were at stake, and from any honorable 
viewpoint the mere intimation of the possibility of the legislature or 
any member of the legislature failing conscientiously to fulfill his 
pledge or loyally obey the instructions of the people would not only 
be an insult to the individual members of the legislature, but an 
insult to the intelligence, independence, and patriotism of the Oregon 
electorate, that they would permit such action to go unnoticed, or 
without holding the culprit to a rigid responsibilit}^ for his treason. 


NO OATH MORE SACRED. 


Let us again consider the wording of this statement No. 1 pledge, 
taken by 51 members of the Oregon legislature: 

STATEMENT NO. 1. 

I further state to the people of Oregon, as well as to the people of my legislative 
district, that during my term of office I will always vote for that candidate for United 
States Senator in Congress who has received the highest number of the people’s votes 
for that position at the general election next preceding the election of a Senator in 
Congress, without regard to my individual preference. 

No oath could be more sacred in honor, no contract more binding, 
no mutual consideration more definite, than is contained in this 
statement No. 1 pledge, and no parties to a contract could be of 
more consequence to government and society than the electorate 
upon the one side and its servants upon the other. 

[At this point Mr. Bourne was interrupted by the expiration of the 
morning hour, when, by unanimous consent, the unfinished business 
was temporarily laid aside that he might conclude his speech.] 

Mr. Bourne. Under the United States Constitution there can be 
no penalty attached to the law. The legislator breaking his sacred 
pledge can not be imprisoned or fined, hence he is doubly bound by 
honor to redeem his voluntary obligations. Failure to do so would 
not only brand him as the destroyer of a sacred trust, but as the most 
contemptible of cowards because legally immune from punishment 
for his perfidy. 

Yet, Mr. President, there were efforts made to dishonor our State 
and our public servants. During the session of the legislature a 
former "government"-official ,7 an assistant to the chairman of the 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


13 


Republican national committee, appeared in Oregon and, I am 
informed, promised federal appointments to legislative members if 
they would disregard their Statement No. 1 pledges to the electorate. 
The effort was made by the enemies of the law to create the impres¬ 
sion that by reason of this person's relations with the chairman of 
the Republican national committee during the national campaign, 
he would be able to deliver these promised federal appointments in 
case Statement No. 1 subscribers sold their honor and betrayed their 
trust. 

I mention these facts to show that the greatest possible strain was 
placed upon our law, and to the credit of the 51 subscribers of State¬ 
ment No. 1 in that legislature be it said that every one of those 
subscribers voted in accordance with his solemn obligation. But I 
would call the attention of the Senate to the fact that notwithstanding 
the people of the State had passed under the initiative the bill I 
have referred to instructing all the members of the legislature to 
vote for the people's choice for United States Senator, not a single 
member of the legislature obeyed said instructions except the State¬ 
ment No. 1 subscriber. 

AN EVOLUTION OF PRACTICAL POLITICS. 

Mr. President, Statement No. 1 was an evolution of many years' 
experience with practical and commercial politics. We doubtless 
all have found in individual cases that men's memories, pledges, and 
agreements were a negligible quantity, but I think we in Oregon 
have demonstrated that our direct primary law contains a pledge 
that will hold any sane man regardless of his cupidity, ambition, 
cowardice, or temerity. 

OTHER PROVISIONS OF PRIMARY LAW. 

Resuming consideration of the direct primary: The returns from 
a primary election are canvassed in the same manner as the returns 
from a general election, and the candidate receiving the highest vote 
for each office is declared the nominee of his party. Candidates of 
parties other than those polling 25 per cent of the total vote of the 
State may be nominated without participating in the direct primary, 
but by means of petition or mass meeting. No candidate nominated 
otherwise than in the direct primary can use either the word “ Repub¬ 
lican" or “Democrat" in any form; that is, the nominees of the 
direct primary are entitled to the party designation in the general 
election, and no opposition candidate can designate himself as an 
“Independent Republican" or “Progressive Republican," or use 
any other qualifying term which includes the word “Republican" 
or “Democrat." These provisions secure to the nominees of the 
direct primary the exclusive right to their party designation on the 
ballot m the general election. Each candidate in the direct primary 
is entitled to have placed in his petition for nomination a statement 
containing not to exceed 100 words, and on the ballot in the primary 
and general election a legend of not more than 12 words specifying 
any measures or principles he especially advocates. 

In my opinion the direct primary is the only practicable method 
of fully securing to the people their right to choose their public 
servants. 







14 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


CONVENTION NOMINEE UNDER OBLIGATION TO A BOSS. 

Under the convention system the members of a party delegate 
their power of selection of candidates to the members of a convention. 
To my mind, this system is most pernicious, because the party elect¬ 
orate feels that its responsibility ceases with the selection of its con¬ 
vention delegates. Hence the responsibility of citizenship is weakened 
and shiftlessness encouraged. 

As soon as the delegates to the convention are chosen, the power of 
selection of public servants becomes centralized in a few and oppor¬ 
tunity is extended to individuals and interests who wish to use public 
servants for selfish or ulterior purposes. Influences adverse to the 
general welfare are immediately brought to bear upon this body of 
delegates. Factions are created, combinations effected, and party 
disruption frequently results. Often a convention nominates a man 
for public office who, prior to the convention, was never seriously con¬ 
sidered as a probable nominee. 

In my thirty years’ experience in politics quite frequently have I 
seen this the case. This strengthens my conviction that the prevailing 
system of convention selections of party candidates is not representa¬ 
tive, but misrepresentative, form of government. The people cer¬ 
tainly have no voice in the selection of candidates when their 
temporary representatives had no idea of making a selection until 
occurrences transpiring during the convention determine their action. 

Let us look at the system in vogue in the selection of delegates. 
In most cases where convention nominations are made we can trace 
back to the political boss and machine the preparation of a slate of 
delegates. In the selection of the individuals composing the slate 
the political boss has in mind the perpetuation of his own power, 
and selects individuals whose interests are identical with his or whom 
he thinks he can direct and control, though occasionally, if antici¬ 
pating a struggle, he will select a few men whose standing in the com¬ 
munity will bring strength to the slate he has prepared in order to 
carry out his purposes. Independent men are selected only where 
it is deemed necessary by the political boss to deceive the public and 
secure sufficient support from the personal influence of those few 
selections to carry through the slate, made up chiefly of his willing 
tools. This system prevails not only in selection of delegates to 
county conventions, but in selection of delegates to congressional, 
state, and national conventions as well. The result is inevitable that 
the delegates nominate candidates whom the machine and political 
bosses desire, except in rare cases where a few independent men are 
able, bv presentation of arguments against the qualifications of a 
machine candidate, to demonstrate to the convention the probability 
of the defeat of the man slated for the position. Frequently, of 
course, a case is presented where the boss has made promises to 
various aspirants for the same office, in which case he excuses him¬ 
self to the disappointed aspirant by explaining that he was unable to 
control the convention. Thus mendacity and treachery are fostered 
by the convention system which by the primary system are absolutely 
eliminated. 

Under the convention system the nominee realizes that his nomina¬ 
tion is due chiefly, if not entirely, to the boss. With this knowledge 
naturally goes a feeling of obligation, so that the nominee, when 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


15 


elected, is desirous, whenever possible, of acceding fo the wishes of 
the man to whom his nomination is due. Thus the efficiency and 
independence of the public servant is seriously affected and his duty 
to the public in many cases completely annihilated. 

NOMINEE OF DIRECT PRIMARY RESPONSIBLE TO PEOPLE ALONE. 

How different in its operation is the direct primary. The man 
who seeks a nomination under the direct primary system must present 
before the members of his party the policies and principles by which 
he will be governed if nominated and elected. He must submit to 
them his past record in public and private life. Promises made to 
political bosses or machine managers will have no beneficial influence 
in determining the result, and therefore the candidate is not tempted 
to place himself under obligations to any interests adverse to those of 
the general public. The members of a party have it within their 
power to determine which of the candidates best represents their ideas 
and wishes. After they have made their selections the candidates of 
opposing parties must stand before the people at the general election, 
when a choice will be made between them. A public servant thus 
chosen owes his election to no faction, machine, or boss, but to the 
members of his party and the electorate of his State or district. He 
is accountable to them alone for his conduct in office, and has, there¬ 
fore, every incentive to render the best possible public service. How 
different in all essentials from the position of the candidate who has 
received his nomination at the hands of a convention controlled by a 
political machine. 

The great masses of the people are not only intelligent, but honest. 
They have no selfish interests to serve and ask nothing of their public 
officials but faithful and efficient service. Only the very few have 
interests adverse to those of the general welfare. The people there¬ 
fore act only for public good when they choose between candidates 
for the nomination or candidates for election. 

The direct primary encourages the people of the country to study 
public questions and to observe and pass judgment upon the acts of 
their public officials. This in itself tends very strongly to the build¬ 
ing up of a better citizenship. 

Honest selections mean honest government and better public 
servants. 

Public servants who lack confidence in the intelligence or honesty 
of the people will find their feelings reciprocated. 

PRIMARY LAWS PROTECT PARTIES. 

Many claim that primary laws destroy party. In my opinion they 
protect and cement parties. Party success depends, under primary 
laws, upon the ideas and principles advocated and the nominations 
made by the parties in their primaries. If a majority party fails to 
make proper nominations, or if the minority party has better material 
in its electorate, then a minority party would rapidly develop into a 
majority party, and rightly so. ~ Under a direct primary law no indi¬ 
vidual can acquire a large personal following or build up a personal 
organization, except such a following as would support the individual 
on account of the principles advocated by him or the demonstration 
made bv him as a public servant. But no man would be able to 







16 POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 

transfer such a following for or against another individual, though he 
might influence thousands or hundreds of thousands of voters to 
support his ideas, constructive suggestions, or proposed solution of 
pending problems. This does not destroy party, but elevates and 
strengthens it, and fortunate indeed is that party which possesses in 
its electorate one or more individuals who are able to advance new 
ideas or evolve solutions which appeal to the sound judgment of his 
fellow-men. 

POPULAR SELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT. 

For years the desirability of popular selection of candidates for 
President and Vice-President has grown upon my mind. By adoption 
of such a plan, Presidents would be relieved of prenomination or 
preelection obligations, except the obligation of good service to all 
the people. Thus accountability to the people alone would be 
established and aspirants for the Presidency would be free from the 
necessity of consulting the wishes of men who make and manipulate 
conventions. To render good public service would be the sole 
desire, for reelection would depend upon demonstration of capability 
and fitness for office. Because of this conviction I have arranged to 
submit, under the initiative, to the people of Oregon at the next 
general election a bill further enlarging the scope of our present 
primary law. It provides for the direct primary election of delegates 
to national conventions, selections of presidential electors, and gives 
the opportunity to the elector in his party primary to express his 
preference for President and Vice-President. 

I am confident that the people of Oregon will enact this law, and I 
hope that other States will follow her example, in which event, 
through the crystallization of public opinion, a method of popular 
selection of Presidents and Vice-Presidents would be secured without 
violation of the Federal Constitution. 

NOT A REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. 

The declaration by each State of its choice for President would 
be in no sense a wider departure from the Constitution than was the 
transformation of the electoral college into a mere registering or 
recording board, yet no one now thinks such change in any wise 
revolutionary. The theory of the Constitution was that each State 
should choose a body of electors who should have choice—election— 
as to those for whom they should vote for President and Vice- 
President. This theory we find expressed in all the expository letters 
and pamphlets written by those who drafted the Constitution. The 
electors were to be free men, bound to no candidate nor to any party. 
They were to meet and survey the whole country, choosing therefrom 
according to their own unhampered and wisest judgment the man 
best fitted to be the head of the nation. This was the law in 1789, 
and it is the law to-day. Theoretically and legally the electoral 
college which cast its perfunctory vote for Mr. Taft and Mr. Sherman 
might have elected Mr. Bryan and Mr. Kerns. Had this been done, 
all the vast power of the Supreme Court could not have set the elec¬ 
tion aside or compelled a true registration of the popular decision 
as expressed at the polls. The Constitution of the United States was 
changed a hundred years ago by force of mere popular acceptation 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


17 


and general usage, so that its machinery to-day is used to effect an 
end which it does not in its letter express—and did not in its concep¬ 
tion anticipate. We have made the constitutional machinery suit 
our idea of the way this Government should be conducted 

We have said that it was better that we should by means of political 
parties choose candidates and by moral force bind the electors whom 
we nominate to vote for such candidates than that we should leave 
the electors we might choose free to do as they saw fit. We have 
converted the elector into an agent—a messenger if you will—whose 
honorable duty it is to cast a ballot for one who may not be his per¬ 
sonal choice for President or whom, indeed, he may regard as unfitted 
for the position of President. The constitutional theory has been 
abandoned and one more democratic has been substituted. We 
evolved a presidential election plan which, while departing from the 
philosophy of the makers of our national organic law, preserved its 
letter and made it subserve the purpose of a society more highly 
developed than that existent when the law was made. This is the 
history of all written law. There is nothing startling in the proposal 
that the Constitution or any other law shall be so interpreted as to 
meet modern needs and thought. We moved toward democracy 
when we abolished the elector as an elector and left him but a figure¬ 
head, and it will be a much less radical move to give instructions by 
popular vote to the delegate who names the party candidate. Indeed, 
it would appear that to follow the latter course would be to do no 
more than institute a procedure complementary to the former. 

CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT. 

The next step in popular government in Oregon after the adoption 
of the direct primary law was the adoption of a corrupt practices act, 
which the legislature had refused to enact, but which the people of 
the State adopted under the initiative. 

The corrupt practices act was adopted under the initiative in 1908 
by popular vote of 54,042 to 31,301. It provides that no candidate 
for office shall expend in his campaign for nomination more than 15 
per cent of one year’s compensation of the office for which he is a can¬ 
didate, provided that no candidate shall be restricted to less than $100. 

PUBLICITY PAMPHLET. 

The act provides, however, for the publication of a pamphlet by 
the secretary of state for the information of voters, in which pamphlet 
a candidate in the primary campaign may have published a statement 
setting forth his qualifications, the principles and policies he advocates 
and favors, or any other matter he may wish to submit in support of 
his candidacy. Each candidate must pay for at least one page, the 
amount to be paid varying from $100 for the highest office to $10 for 
the minor offices. Every candidate may secure the use of additional 
pages at $100 per page, not exceeding three additional pages. Any 
person may use space in this pamphlet in opposition to any candidate, 
the matter submitted by him being first served upon the candidate 
and the space being paid for the same as in the case of candidates. 
The matter submitted in opposition to candidates must be signed by 
the author, who is subject to the general laws regarding slander and 

S. Doc. 524, 61-2— - 2 







18 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


libel. Information regarding state and congressional candidates is 
printed in a pamphlet issued by the secretary of state, one copy being 
mailed to each registered voter in the State. Pamphlets regarding 
county candidates are issued by the count}?" clerk and mailed to each 
voter in the county. These pamphlets must be mailed at least eight 
days before the primary election. The amount of money paid for 
space in the public pamphlet of information is not considered in deter¬ 
mining the amount each candidate has expended in his campaign; 
that is, he is entitled to expend in his primary campaign 15 per cent 
of one year’s compensation in addition to what he pays for space in 
the public pamphlet. 

Prior to the general election the executive committee or managing 
officers of any political party or organization may file with the sec¬ 
retary of state portrait cuts of its candidates and typewritten state¬ 
ments and arguments for the success of its principles and the election 
of its candidates and opposing or attacking the principles and candi¬ 
dates of all other parties. This same privilege applies to independent 
candidates. These statements and arguments are printed in a pam¬ 
phlet and mailed to the registered voters of the State not later than 
the tenth day before the general election. 

Each party is limited to 24 pages, and each independent candidate 
to 2 pages, each page in this pamphlet being charged for at the rate 
of $50 per page. In the campaign preceding the general election 
each candidate is limited in campaign expenditures to 10 per cent 
of one year’s compensation. 

For the purposes of this act the contribution, expenditure, or lia¬ 
bility of a descendant, ascendant, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, 
niece, wife, partner, employer, employee, or fellow-official or fellow-em¬ 
ployee of a corporation is deemed to be that of the candidate himself. 
Any person not a candidate spending more than $50 in a campaign 
must file an itemized account of his expenditures in the office of the 
secretary of state or the county clerk and give a copy of the account 
to the candidate for whom or against whom the money was spent. 

LEGITIMATE USE OF MONEY WITHIN LIMIT. 

While the corrupt practices act limits the candidate to the expendi¬ 
ture of 15 per cent of one year’s salary in his primary campaign and 
10 per cent of a year’s salary in the general campaign, in addition to 
what he pays for space in the publicity pamphlet, yet the law does 
not prohibit any legitimate use of money within this limitation. 
The act makes it possible for a man of moderate means to be a candi¬ 
date upon an equality with a man of wealth. 

Let us take a concrete example as a means of illustrating the 
operation of Oregon’s corrupt practices act. The salary of the 
governor is $5,000 a year. A candidate for the nomination for 
governor may take a maximum ol four pages in the publicity pamphlet, 
and thus, at a cost of $400, be able to reach every registered voter 
of his party in the entire State. In addition to that $400 he may 
spend $750, or 15 per cent of one year’s salary, in any other manner 
he may choose, not in violation of the corrupt practices act. A 
candidate may purchase space in the advertising columns of a news¬ 
paper, but in order that this paid advertising shall not be mistaken 
for news, the law requires that all paid articles be marked as such. 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


19 


The law expressly provides that none of its provisions shall be 
construed as relating to the rendering of services by speakers, writers, 
publishers, or others for which no compensation is asked or given; 
nor to prohibit expenditure by committees of political parties or 
organizations for public speakers, music, halls, lights, literature, 
advertising, office rent, printing, postage, clerk hire, challengers or 
watchers at the polls, traveling expenses, telegraphing or telephoning, 
or the making of poll lists. 

The successful nominee in the primary may spend in his general 
campaign 10 per cent of one year’s salary, this expenditure, in the case 
of a candidate for governor, being $500. In addition to this 10 per 
cent of a year’s salary he may contribute toward the payment for his 
party’s statement in the publicity pamphlet to be mailed by the 
secretary of state to every registered voter. In the publicity pam¬ 
phlet for the general campaign each party may use not to exceed 24 
pages, at $50 per page, making the total cost to the party committee 
$1,200, or about $100 for each candidate. 

Mr. Gallinger. Mr. President- 

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Curtis in the chair). Does the Sena¬ 
tor from Oregon yield to the Senator from New Hampshire ? 

Mr. Bourne. I do. 

Mr. Gallinger. Will it interrupt the Senator if I ask him a ques¬ 
tion? 

Mr. Bourne. Not at all. 

Mr. Gallinger. I am very much interested in the Senator’s state¬ 
ment, and I wish to ask him, Is there any means of preventing other 
persons from contributing to the- campaign of a candidate? For 
instance, the governor of Oregon is permitted to expend $750 in addi¬ 
tion to the cost of advertising in the pamphlet referred to. 

Mr. Bourne. Yes. 

Mr. Gallinger. Is there any method which would prevent his 
friends outside from putting up money to aid him in his campaign, to 
a very large extent, possibly ? 

Mr. Bourne. Mr. President, in answer to the inquiry of the Sen¬ 
ator from New Hampshire, I will say that there is an express pro¬ 
vision in the law that no individual can expend more than $50 for 
anybody else, unless he files a statement of his expenses, and he 
becomes liable to the provisions of the law, which the Senator will 
see, as I go along, covers that point very fully. 

Mr. Gallinger. The Senator from Oregon had not stated that, 
and I wanted to know about it. 

Mr. Bourne. Certainly. 

The candidate is therefore limited to an expenditure of $600 in 
his general campaign, $100 of which is necessary in order to enable 
him to reach every registered voter. He could reach every registered 
voter in his party in the primary campaign for $400. Under no 
other system could a candidate reach all the voters in two cam¬ 
paigns at a total cost of $500. 

IMPROPER ACTS PROHIBITED. 

The Oregon corrupt practices act encourages and aids publicity, 
but prohibits the excessive or improper use of money or other agencies 
for the subversion of clean elections. Among the acts which are 
prohibited I may mention these: 








20 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


Promises of appointments in return for political support. 

Solicitation or acceptance of campaign contributions from or pay- • 
ment of contributions by persons holding appointive positions. 

Publication or distribution of anonymous letters or circulars regard¬ 
ing candidates or measures before the people. 

Sale of editorial support or the publication of paid political adver¬ 
tising without marking it “Paid advertising.' 7 

Use of carriages in conveying voters to the polls. 

Active electioneering or soliciting votes on election day. 

Campaign contributions by quasi public or certain other important 
classes of corporations generally affected by legislation. 

Intimidation or coercion of voters in any manner. 

Soliciting candidates to subscribe to religious, charitable, public, 
and semipublic enterprises; but this does not prohibit regular pay¬ 
ments to any organization of which the candidate has been a member, 
or to which he has been a contributor for more than six months before 
his candidacy. 

Contribution of funds in the name of any other than the person 
furnishing the money. 

Treating by candidates as a means of winning favor. 

Payment or promise to reward another for the purpose of inducing 
him to become or refrain from becoming or cease being a candidate, 
or solicitation of such consideration. 

Betting on an election by a candidate, or betting on an election by 
any other person with intent to influence the result. 

Attempting to vote in the name of another person, living, dead, 
or fictitious. 


PUBLICITY OF CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES. 

There is no interference with such legitimate acts as tend to secure 
full publicity and free expression of opinion. Personal and political 
liberty is in no way infringed upon, the only purpose being to pro¬ 
hibit the excessive use of money, promises of appointment, or decep¬ 
tion or fraud. 

The corrupt practices act requires that every candidate shall file 
an itemized statement of his campaign expenditures within fifteen 
days after the primary election, including in such statement not 
only all amounts expended, but all debts incurred or unfulfilled 
promises made. 

Every political committee must have a treasurer, and cause him 
to keep a detailed account of its receipts, payments, and liabilities. 
Any committee or agent or representative of a candidate must file 
an itemized statement of receipts and expenditures within ten days 
after the election. The books of account of any treasurer of any po¬ 
litical party, committee, or organization during an election campaign 
shall be open at all reasonable office hours to the inspection of the 
treasurer and chairman of any opposing political party or organization 
for the same electoral district. Failure to file statements as required 
by law is punishable by fine. 

The candidate violating any section of the currupt practices act 
forfeits his right to the office. Any other person violating any sec¬ 
tion of this act is punished by imprisonment of not more than one 
year in the county jail, or a fine of not more than $5,000, or both. 
The candidate is also subject to the same penalties. 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


21 


THE RECALL. 

The final step in the establishment of popular government in 
Oregon was the adoption of the recall amendment to the con¬ 
stitution, which was adopted in 1908 by a vote of 58,381 to 31,002. 
Under this amendment any public officer may be recalled by the 
filing of a petition signed by 25 per cent of the number of electors 
who voted in his district in the preceding election. The petition 
must set forth the reasons for the recall, and if the officer does not 
resign within five days after the petition is filed a special election 
must be ordered to be held within twenty days to determine whether 
the people will recall such officer. On the ballot at such election 
the reasons for demanding the recall of said officer may be set forth 
in not more than 200 words. His justification of his course in office 
may be set forth in a like number of words. He retains his office 
until the results of the special election have been officially declared. 

No petition can be circulated against any officer until he has 
held office six months, except that in the case of a member of the 
state legislature it may be filed at any time after five days from the 
beginning of the first session after his election. At the special elec¬ 
tion the candidate receiving the highest number of votes is de¬ 
clared elected. The special election is held at public expense, but 
a second recall petition can not be filed against an officer unless the 
petitioners first pay the entire expense of the first recall election. 

THE BEST SYSTEM OF POPULAR GOVERNMENT. 

Mr. President, I reiterate that Oregon has evolved the best system 
of popular government that exists in the world to-day. 

The Australian ballot assures the honesty of elections. 

The registration law guards the integrity of the privilege of Ameri¬ 
can citizenship—participation in government. 

The direct primary absolutely insures popular selection of all can¬ 
didates and establishes the responsibility of the public servant to the 
electorate and not to any political boss or special interest. 

The initiative and referendum is the keystone of the arch of popular 
government, for by means of this the people may accomplish such 
other reforms as they desire. The initiative develops the electorate 
because it encourages study of principles and policies of government, 
and affords the originator of new ideas in government an opportunity 
to secure popular judgment upon his measures if 8 per cent of the 
voters of his State deem the same worthy of submission to popular 
vote. The referendum prevents misuse of the power temporarily 
centralized in the legislature! 

The corrupt-practices act is necessary as a complement to the 
initiative and referendum and the direct primary, for, without the 
corrupt-practices act, these other features of popular government 
could be abused. As I have fully explained, the publicity pamphlet 
provided for by the corrupt-practices act affords all candidates for 
nomination or election equal means of presenting before the voter 
their views upon public questions, and protects the honest candi¬ 
date against the misuse of money in political campaigns. Under 
the operation of this law popular verdicts will be based upon ideas, 
not money; argument, not abuse; principles, not boss or machine 
dictation. 


22 


POPULAR VERSUS DELEGATED GOVERNMENT. 


The recall, to my mind, is rather an admonitory or precautionary 
measure, the existence of which will prevent the necessity for its use. 
At rare intervals there may be occasion for exercise of the recall 
against municipal or county officers, but I believe the fact of its 
existence will prevent need for its use against the higher officials. 
It is, however, an essential feature of a complete system of popular 
government. 

ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE. 

Under the machine and political-boss system the confidence of 
sincere partisans is often betrayed by recreant leaders in political 
contests and by public servants who recognize the irresponsible 
machine instead of the electorate as the source of power to which 
they are responsible. If the enforcement of the Oregon laws will 
right these wrongs, then they were conceived in wisdom and born 
in justice to the people, in justice to the public servant, and in justice 
to the partisan. 

Plainly stated, the aim and purpose of the laws are to destroy the 
irresponsible political machine and to put all elective offices in the 
State in direct touch wdth the people as the real source of authority; 
in short, to give direct and full force to the ballot of every individual 
elector in Oregon and to eliminate dominance of corporate and cor¬ 
rupt influences in the administration of public affairs. The Oregon 
laws mark the course that must be pursued before the wrongful use 
of corporate power can be dethroned, the people restored to power, 
and lasting reform secured. They insure absolute government by 
the people. 




t 









